Key Points: Daniel Richman FBI Leak Probe
- Daniel Richman FBI leak probe subpoena marks the third DOJ attempt to charge James Comey
- The renewed investigation centers on 2017 memos detailing Comey’s conversations with Trump
- Richman previously fought a similar federal inquiry in civil court and won last December
- This case runs parallel to Comey’s separate, ongoing “8647” Instagram threat prosecution
Federal prosecutors just reopened one of the longest-running legal sagas involving former FBI Director James Comey, subpoenaing his closest confidant for a third time in nearly a decade.
What The Daniel Richman FBI Leak Probe Actually Targets
A federal grand jury issued a subpoena Monday to Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and longtime friend and adviser to Comey.
Here’s what investigators are examining. The probe centers on whether Comey improperly shared classified information with The New York Times, specifically through memos he wrote documenting private conversations with President Trump.
That underlying leak dates back to May 2017, when Trump fired Comey as FBI director. Comey subsequently gave Richman information from those memos, which Richman then shared with Times reporter Michael Schmidt.
Here’s the historical significance behind that original disclosure. Those memo details helped set in motion the sequence of events that ultimately led to Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel investigating Russian election interference.
Why This Investigation Keeps Coming Back
Here’s the pattern that makes this subpoena notable. The Justice Department first investigated this same leak during Trump’s first administration, but the inquiry was closed without charges once Biden took office in 2021.
Fox News reports this now marks the third separate attempt by federal prosecutors to build a case connected to Comey over the years, following that initial unsuccessful investigation.
Richman himself isn’t new to legal scrutiny either. He previously fought a related federal inquiry in civil court and secured a favorable ruling last December, according to Fox News reporting.
Importantly, a subpoena represents a demand for testimony or records, not a formal charge. Neither Richman nor Comey has been convicted of anything connected to this specific leak matter.
How This Connects To Comey’s Other Ongoing Case
Here’s why this development lands at an already tense moment for Comey legally. He’s separately facing federal charges tied to a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to spell “8647,” which prosecutors argue constituted a threat against Trump.
That case has already seen its own turbulence, with the original prosecuting attorney resigning in early June amid the proceedings.
Comey’s legal team has consistently characterized this broader pattern of prosecutions as politically motivated retaliation, arguments that remain pending before the courts.
With a new grand jury now actively investigating the decade-old memo leak, and Comey’s separate threat case still working through pretrial proceedings, one of Washington’s longest-running legal feuds shows no signs of resolution heading into the fall.